The model clarifies the claim that one is _actually_ making when one goes a different direction. It means either:

A: you think you have better (other) info than the prophet about what God wants or
B: you think you are not supposed to do what God wants

Now I find both of these potentially troublesome (B is goofy), but those are the conditions that immediately come to mind. Reaching one of these conclusions should be a matter of personal introspection based on how reliable you think this other information is compared to how reliable the prophet is (and the probability that the prophet already considered and integrated it into his view). Deciding that neither apply is also a matter of personal introspection. Either way, one is “following one’s gut” as to how best to follow God (if following one’s gut includes introspection). In reality, “following your gut” is, at least to some extent, unavoidably mixed in with internalized counsel from those we have trusted in our lives, so it is not as if there exists some “pure” introspection that will not be influenced by the past or present views of others, whether we recognize it or not. So there is no immediate reason not to throw the prophet into the mix as part of “following your gut”.

Many people seem to believe A, and certainly many times the prophet gives general counsel and expects us to make our own personal decisions, so personal introspection and adaptation _is_ following the prophet. Personally I find A unlikely for church wide doctrinal or policy statements, but you are free to believe as you wish. It is at least a coherent belief that is widely shared by, for example, 99% of the Earth’s population.

What is not obvious to me is how you could say that you do not follow prophetic counsel but reject both A and B (setting aside plain old failure of will to obey, which is, we can agree, ubiquitous). Unless there is some “C” I missed, then that just doesn’t make sense.

Frank, how does ‘thinking about prophetic counsel appropriately’ work when personal introspection, taking into account prophetic counsel…..leads one to a conclusion that is different than prophetic direction? It seems to me that even at this point, in your scenario, a step in a direction different than the prophet is defined as “not following the prophet?” Therefore, isn’t any introspection, “following your gut”, doing analysis, etc., moot because at the end of the day….we’re to follow the prophet anyway? Maybe I really missed something.

Yes, I think you are right. He finally came back and has commented briefly again. He did mention that he has been a member for 65 years! Definitely the guy. LOL What is the deal with him then and why would he be out here on his own with this theory. NO ONE is jumping on this bandwagon. Let me throw out what he has posted. Like you say though, he has given no source for his information, so obviously it is his own song. How did you know it was him and what do you think?

Thanks,
Kathryn

QUOTE:

To modify an old saying “There are none so blind as those who cannot read what is actually written in the standard works of the Church”.

The word used in the introduction is principal not principle.

From the introduction to the 1981 edition of the BofM.

“and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians”

From the online Webster’s Dictionary of the English language

Main Entry: 1prin·ci·pal
Pronunciation: \ˈprin(t)-s(ə-)pəl, -sə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin principalis, from princip-, princeps
Date: 14th century
1 : most important, consequential, or influential : chief
2 : of, relating to, or constituting principal or a principal

NOT

Main Entry: prin·ci·ple
Pronunciation: \ˈprin(t)-s(ə-)pəl, -sə-bəl\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French principe, principle, from Old French, from Latin principium beginning, from princip-, princeps initiator — more at prince
Date: 14th century
1 a: a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1): a rule or code of conduct (2): habitual devotion to right principles c: the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device
2: a primary source : origin
3 a: an underlying faculty or endowment b: an ingredient (as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality
4capitalized Christian Science : a divine principle : god

It was not changed in response to DNA findings or to a change in Mormon thought, it was changed because people, including members of the church, could not tell the difference between two English words and did not actually read what was written. It has always meant the most important ancesters, in particular with reference to spiritual blessings. It is through Father Lehi that all descendents of American Indian cultures will be blessed just as through Abraham all the world will be blessed whether they are genetic descendents of Abraham or not.

Larry P

……but the furor over a change which was made by those who had every right to do so has upset me more than all the Anti nonsense promoted on the internet. I have been a member of the Church for over 65 years since I was baptized at the age of eight. I have seen many changes in the different editions of the BofM and the Bible published by the Church. I watched the build up of critics who jumped on the Introduction published in the 1981 edition and its culmination in the publications about Lamanite DNA. My claim is based on my own experience and knowledge of continued efforts by church leaders to explain what the introduction actually said. Personally, I think the change to “among” was an attempt to downplay the efforts of some including members to use the introduction to promote their particular theory about BofM geography and culture. I was not talking of spiritual linage but of the means by which God provides for spirtual blessings and makes no exception of persons. Especially not on the basis of the genes they may or may not carry.

Larry P